DMG Excerpt: Customizing Monsters

[AllisterH]

For me this is not a "simulation issue" (though that bugs me a bit as well), but rather it is something that goes from as simple as "equiping" a monster by giving it something and just running with it to "customizing it", requiring to figure out a different bonus based on the creature, and what it is "really" like, etc. . .

For me it is a matter of "this thing always gives +X" as compared to, "oh wait, what is this thing in the hands of this monster?"

What if a intelligent monster/foe picks up an item dropped by a careless of disarmed PC, for example? It is something to figure out mid-combat rather than just simple as add X.

Er, I don't think you understand what the EXCERPT was about and this goes for Derren as well.

Magic items don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures however, if you want a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to lose power.

Basically, Cadfan explained it beautifully.

It seems the DEFAULT situation is that no creature in the MM actually has the EQUIVALENT to the 4E's Big three. )Namely, magic weapon/armour/defenses. The math for them is factored into their original equation.

However, if you want to have a creature with a magical item, the exercept talks about HOW you would balance it so that in effect, the creature is equal to what it would be WITHOUT the magical item.

So in the scenario where for example, a monster picks up a +5 sword, the monster of course is going to have an attack +5 higher but presumably, if you design a monster with a +5 sword, you don't WANT the monster to be stronger than before.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Somewhat more surprising, natural armor and regular armor don't stack. That's gonna take some unlearning.

oh nos!!!! well i can see how the druid is going to balance now...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."

Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.



Sure. And I can make ogres stronger, or orcs weaker, or say that all hobgoblins can cast Magic Missile once per day. It's my world. The point is, there needs to be a baseline to vary from, or what are we buying again, exactly? A book of pretty monster pictures?



And the point is missed by a few light years...

I want to build a world that makes sense. Knowing things like vampire spawn rates gives me a way of determining 'reasonable' vampire populations. Now, if I'm doing a vampire-centric world, then I'd just make up whatever I wanted to fit the overarching game theme. But if I'm doing a broader game, I just want to have a general idea of how common vampires are, and for that, I depend on the rules to give me useful crunch -- just like they tell me that orcs are more likely to be warriors than spellcasters (while giving me the freedom to add orc wizards if I so choose), or that dragons fly.

I find one of the most enjoyable parts of worldbuilding is working from the dry facts of the MM to the cultural/social/historical implications. That's why I prefer good solid crunch to flavor text. I consider undead creation rates to be crunch, not fluff. The fluff is derived from that crunch.

I also consider a 'shared consensus world' to be valuable, especially in a semi-open gaming environment. The more baseline material is left out in favor just presenting stripped down combat stats, the more different assumptions third party publishers will make, and the less useful any product will be without extensive work.

A vampire-specific sourcebook might contain a whole bunch of rules, options, and guidelines for designing vampires in your game, with essays on the implications of each decision. I'd buy it. The core game, though, should contain a default. "Vampires make spawn" is not enough, any more than "Orcs fight a lot" -- without providing actual combat stats -- is.

Glad to see you're alive and well. (I suppose. Could be your Ghost in the Machine typing these words. But that would be all kinds of awesome)

It seems to me as if people have different definitions of what is important to describing a monster. Some are content with its statistic describing anything the creature does in the context of an encounter (e.g. any direct interaction with the PCs). Some limit it further to combat encounter, but 4E at least seems to include non-combat stuff, too. (Since all monsters have skill modifiers). But it doesn't include more.
Others also want its statistics including stuff outside of encounters. Like how it "procreates" (if diverging from the baseline), or any other part that is outside of PC/NPC interaction. That's how 3E did it.

So, the latter group now is forced to come to grips with a system that does only model PC/NPC interaction, and leaves the rest to handwaving, imagination or house-rules. While the former group can enjoy its freedom and hopefully manage to navigate the drawbacks of having to flesh out the NPC/NPC or NPC/World when it arises.

...

There is, off course, a further possibility. Maybe there are general "fall-back" rules. Maybe the rules for necrotic energy explain that creatures slain by necrotic energy attacks from undead rise as such undeads again. I don't quite believe that, but, just for the sake of it.

 

[Saitou]

I'll believe this when I see you apply the same exact reasoning to the naming conventions WotC is using for abilities, as they're also valuable in helping set a 'shared consensus world' just like what you want for vampire lords.

Asking haters for consistency is pushing it a bit, methinks. They try so hard, too.


I can't help but see that Lizard is using very many words to say that he wants everything a creature does to be statted and crunched, even the non-combat parts.
Which is just what 4E is enver going to do. And the reason why 3E is so cumbersome.

He also wants the freedom to change anything, but wants the sourcebooks to be confined to their own 'shared consensus'.

I need to lie down for awhile.

 

[el-remmen]

Er, I don't think you understand what the EXCERPT was about and this goes for Derren as well.

Magic items don't LOSE power in the hands of creatures however, if you want a balanced encounter with a magic weapon, then in effect, the creature itself has to lose power.

No, I do understand. I just think the answer should be, want it to be "balanced"? (gee, I hate that term) Then don't give it that item. Give it something weaker or nothing at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This may not seem like a huge deal. After all, +3 attack doesn't seem too big. But if the monster is a Solo Brute, that +3 might be pretty painful. Or if you're at higher levels and you're dealing with +5s, the increase over the baseline can be awfully significant.

It doesn't seem to big in 3e numbers. But 3e trained players and DMs to expect huge variations in things. Of course that barbarian was going to have a -2 diplomacy check while the bard has a +45. A +3 bonus to either of them isn't going to make much of a difference.

Same thing with combat. Of course the Gargantuan creature has +40 to hit while the wizard has +11. +3 to either is not a big deal. And when you are rolling 3d6+30 for damage, 3 extra damage seems rather small.

Still, when the monster has +20 to hit against your AC of 29 and it is doing 1d6+10 damage, the last thing you want is for it to suddenly get +3 to hit and damage. And in 4e, it's almost the same as increasing the monster's level by 3.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Okay, so I have this golf club. And it has these arrows on it that make it easier to hit the ball. I give it to tiger woods. Doesn't help hime any.

"+X" weapons are a simulation weak point anyway. I explain it with it magically corrects the aim. People with good aim or really strong don't feel the correction.

Further discussion on this topic of what a +X weapon is in terms of simulation should be discussed outside this thread as it is a side issue

So a +2 sword is just a sword with "pointy end goes into the other guy" in big red letters? That hilarious .

But seriously, the idea that powerful creature's "innate skill/power/awesomeness" is such that they get nothing out of items that aren't as awesome as them makes perfect sense from a simulationist perspective. (Sure, the fact that PCs don't work that way doesn't, but that's another conversation).

"If the monster has Strength 18, ,20, 22, any answer would appease you? Seems you just want an answer for the heck of it."

Yeah. I want statistics in my monster book. Silly me. I consider things like spawn creation for undead as important as their armor class. Then again, I see the game as more than a sequence of combat set pieces.

*Sigh*, I really wish it wasn't true, but not including there insults, I do agree. While I don't need hard rules, or even details for all the different types I would like a suggestion as to how fast/easy Undead Spawn in general could be pumped out in "normal" circumstances (and possibly some ecology?) . I don't need rules for Orc diet or reproduction, because I have a base to work off, but there's enough different types of vampires and undead around so that if there aren't suggestions, when the throwaway NPC Vampire who wasn't supposed to be important becomes the focus of the Campaign because my players become absoluty fixated on him it's not so obvious what he needs to live, and how he can propugate, which in my experiance leads to confusion and miscommunication between the DM and the players.

Could a be group specific thing though.

 

[SuperJosh]

There is. It's a story called Desert Sun by Jon Rogers (who's currently doing Blue Beetle) which can be found in the "Ninja Tales" anthology from Boom Studios. I don't know if you could still find it in stores, I haven't seen any new copies, well, ever, but second hand compies can be found on Amazon, Ebay and probaby other places.

THANKS A -TON- Pumpkin Man, I was able to snag one off your ebay link for 5.62 AFTER shipping. Can not wait, if this is good I might have to pick up pirate tales.

Thanks again.

 

[Jer]

I know the mechanical reason for this, but from a simulationist point of view it does not make sense that items stop working when they are in the hand of powerful individuals.

Nothing in the linked article says that they "stop working" - in 3e terms the monster automatically gets an enhancement bonus to attack based on it's level and that enhancement bonus does not stack with the ehancement bonus given by a magic item. That's all. If a monster it using a magic item it has exchanged it's enhacement bonus to attack for the bonus from the magic item.

And ... this is the EXACT SAME RULE that they've been telling us applies to PCs, though they've been phrasing it differently. The way they've been phrasing this rule is "if you want a low magic game, here's the bonus you need to give to the PCs at these levels to keep the math working right". The PCs get the bonus instead of the magic weapon - the monsters get the bonus instead of the magic weapon. Same rule. And frankly I don't see anything wrong at all from a "simulationist" perspective with this setup ... unless what you're trying to "simulate" is 1st edition AD&D.

 

[AllisterH]

No, I do understand. I just think the answer should be, want it to be "balanced"? (gee, I hate that term) Then don't give it that item. Give it something weaker or nothing at all.

Reading the excerpt again, the DEFAULT situation is definitely that no monster in the MM is actually using magical items for its attack/defenses. The same probably goes for the quick NPC tables in the DMG I guess.

You (the DM) have to ACTIVELY give monsters magical weapons and if you do, presumably you don't want the magical weapons to be so strong that they in effect make the encounter more about the weapon.

You can see this when they talk about just making the ogres an 11th level creature by upping its HP. Basically, this excerpt is for people that want to give out treasure as magical weapons/armour but don't want to kill their players presumably.

Personally, I'm ecstatic about this as this is the first time I've seen D&D designers understand the MATH behind the magical item glut economy. You ACTUALLY might be able to run a low magic item campaign in D&D for once.

re: Vampire and Liches
Er, a couple of points.

1) We know there is a Vampire Spawn from before
2) How come nobody wants the stats for the ability to grant its power to its minion yet we must know the vampire spawn rate/equation?
3) READ the execpt again. Liches do NOT need a phylactery. Only Liches that use a Ritual get one.

re: Natural armour and regular armour
Cutting it off at the pass is a good thing. When 3E allowed for natural armour to stack with regular armour, that was one of the most abusive things/broken things that 3E did for the spellcasters. Wildshape/polymorph into high natural AC/boost natural AC via spell/wear armour/boost manufactured armour via spell.

You guys honestly can't see how this "broke" the system?